Two of the world's most effective national leaders of our time are well behind in opinion polls.
A recent survey into the opinion of Australians regarding their US neighbours has made some discoveries. Firstly, Australians like US peoples, with 92% supporting the ongoing alliance. Secondly, because of the Iraq war, and the perception of President Bush's performance, 48% said Australia should take a more independant stance.
What is remarkable about the survey is how little recognition is evident of the effectiveness of these two leaders.
Mr Howard has taken an Australia whose economy was trashed over thirteen years of ALP federal government and brought on propserity unheard of since Gortyn was dumped as PM by Macmahon. Employment is above 95%, real wages are at their highest ever, public debt is gone, mainland security is so effective that at one stage, no illegal boat peoples arrived over an 18 month period. Industrial relations have an effective, fair policy. Wharves run with world's best practise. People are paid to own houses and have babies. The worst parts of Australia involve state issues, and all the states are ALP run.
President Bush has similarly been a great leader in the US. His Whitehouse has overseen the toppling of regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with few casualties. Education changes have been beneficial and profound. Homeland security had been unheard of by Bush's predecessors. Economy has at times run so well that interest rates were at 1%.
But you wouldn't know about their success. Comedians and pop stars and politicians have nibbled at the truth for so long, that polls are showing that many believe the lies.
===
Some lies are listed here. I'll address each of them in line.
For Howard:
Australian Wheat Board Scandal
Children Overboard and Sieve X
Timor, Fiji, Solomans, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq
Health, Public Transport, Water, Power, Drought
Telstra
Industrial Relations failure
Interest Rates
For Bush:
Public speaking failure, intelligence
Economy
Iraq, Afghanistan, 911
Katrina
Democrat popularity
1999 Gore 'election'
Aussies lose confidence in the US and George W. Bush
ReplyDeleteBy John Lyons
AUSTRALIANS have suffered a dramatic loss of confidence in the ability of the US to manage international affairs amid growing dissatisfaction with President George W. Bush and his conduct of the Iraq war.
The first survey of attitudes by a centre set up by the Howard Government to improve relations between Australia and the US has found a significant deterioration in the way Australians feel towards the US.
That level of confidence has almost halved in just six years - from 66 per cent in 2001 to 37per cent today, coinciding with the Iraq war.
And almost three-quarters said Australia's involvement in the war on terror had made it a terrorist target, a view at odds with that asserted by John Howard.
The survey of 1213 Australians in July was carried out by the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. The centre was set up this year with $25 million from the Howard Government to be "the prime Australian source of information and commentary on the US".
While the Iraq war has damaged Australians' view of the Bush administration more than anything else, the survey found continuing support for the US alliance: 92 per cent expected the US to continue to be a close security partner and 79 per cent considered the alliance important to Australia's protection.
But 48 per cent said it would be better for Australia if a more independent stance were taken.
This contrasted with an opinion poll from 1975 showing only 26 per cent wanted a more independent relationship.
Because of the Iraq war and Mr Bush's performance, Australians' opinion of the US has hit a 30-year low.
Asked to name something they disliked about the US, the largest response was about the President himself.
The large number who believed Australia had become a terrorist target due to involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan reflects the view expressed three years ago by Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty that the nation is now a greater target - a view which almost cost him his job.
Mr Keelty's view on another subject is also endorsed - he told a conference two weeks ago global warming was the No.1 threat to Australia's security.
Seventy-six per cent of respondents viewed global warming as "equally serious" or "more serious" than Islamic fundamentalism and 69 per cent wanted Australia and the US to set clear targets for reducing greenhouse gases.
A large number also believed the threat of Islamic fundamentalism had been exaggerated.
The US Studies Centre seeks to have bipartisan representation on its board.
Former Labor leader Kim Beazley and former Liberal frontbencher Michael Baume are members.
Last night Mr Beazley said confidence in the US had suffered because of the war in Iraq. "When you have a bad, failed policy, that is the result you get," he said.
"It's no coincidence that the last time Australians had this level of confidence (in the US) was in the early 1970s with another war (Vietnam)."
The acting chief executive of the US Studies Centre, Alan Dupont, said the "dramatic falling away" of confidence in the US in handling international affairs was due not just to Iraq but "the way the Bush administration generally plays here in Australia".
While 64 per cent opposed the war in Iraq, 50 per cent were opposed to Australian involvement in Afghanistan, posing a problem for Labor should they come to power as Kevin Rudd has said he would maintain support for troops in Afghanistan.
Professor Dupont agreed many of the results were at odds with public statements by Mr Howard but "you can see that a vast majority of Australians do believe we've become more of a target because of our involvement in the war on terror, but notwithstanding that they still register strong support for the security relationship with the US".
From Wikipedia
ReplyDeletePreviously a low profile organisation, the AWB made headlines in late 2005 when it was alleged that it had knowingly paid kickbacks to the Iraq Government, defrauding the UN and violating sanctions. At the insistence of the Iraq government of dictator Saddam Hussein, the AWB agreed to pay 'transportation fees' of around $AUD 290 million. At the same time, the price per ton paid from the UN Oil-for-Food program was raised by an amount slightly above the 'transportation fees'.
The government-sanctioned Cole Inquiry into the company's role in the scandal has been completed and was tabled by Attorney General Philip Ruddock on the 27th of November 2006.[2] Australia's government has distanced itself from the payments to Saddam Hussein's regime, given Australia's contribution to military action against Hussein in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Andrew Lindberg resigned as managing director on 9 February 2006 and from the board of directors on 22 February 2006 under intense public and media pressure.
The Oil-for-Food program UN resolution 986 was passed on 1995-04-14 and the program ran from late 1996 until 2003-03-20.
On 11 July 2006, North American farmers are claiming $1 billion in damages from AWB at Washington DC, alleging the Australian wheat exporter used bribery and other corrupt activities to corner grain markets. The growers are also claiming that AWB used the same techniques to secure grain sales in other markets in Asia and other countries in the Middle East.
===
It is apparent to some Washington observers that the targetting of AWB is a protective measure by the corrupt individuals within the UN who were responsible for the Oil for Food scandal.
While predatory practise of that participated in by the AWB is unsavoury, it is the UN which is ultimately responsible for the mess, and the cover ups.
Still, it is easy to just blame the Australian Federal Government, because they weren't corrupt, and so none will stand up for them.
from Wikipedia
ReplyDeleteThe Children Overboard affair was an Australian political controversy. In October 2001, during the lead-up to a federal election, the Australian government repeatedly claimed that asylum seekers on a “Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel” (SIEV), intercepted by HMAS Adelaide off Christmas Island, had thrown a number of children overboard in a presumed ploy to secure rescue and passage onto Australian soil. The vessel, designated SIEV 4, was believed to be operated by people smugglers.
The claim was first made by Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock on 7 October 2001 (the day before writs for the 2001 federal election were issued[1]). It was later repeated by other senior government ministers including Defence Minister Peter Reith and Prime Minister John Howard.
The government's handling of this and other recent events involving unauthorised arrivals worked in its favour. The Tampa incident had led the government to adopt stricter border protection measures to prevent unauthorised arrivals from reaching Australia by boat. Polls indicated the measures had public support. The government was able to portray itself as "strong" on border protection measures and opponents as "weak". In November 2001, the Liberal-National coalition was re-elected with an increased majority.
A Senate select committee inquiry later found that the "Children Overboard" claim was untrue and that the government knew this prior to the election. The government attracted criticism that it had misled the public and cynically "exploited voters' fears of a wave of illegal immigrants by demonising asylum-seekers".
While it remains uncertain whether sabotage caused SIEV 4 to sink, in an interview for a book, The Howard Factor, John Howard maintained "they irresponsibly sank the damn boat, which put their children in the water" and "they did sink the boat".
===
The media and senate criticism is less than opinion, it is baracking that is politically charged. The boat people on Siev 4 sank their own vessel. They threatend to throw thier own children overboard. They played up to cameras.
I think Australians recognised the duplicity of the political opponents of the Australian Government of the day, but I am concerned that the repeated lie that the Australian Federal Government, or the Navy, were somehow culpable might be believed by the young or weak minded.
From Wikipedia
ReplyDeleteSIEV-X stands for Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel X (the X means “unknown”). It is the name, coined by Tony Kevin, commonly used to refer to a dilapidated Indonesian fishing boat that was en-route to Christmas Island carrying over 400 asylum seekers. It sank in international waters on October 19, 2001, killing 353 people, mostly women and children. The tragedy was politically controversial in Australia, as it occurred during an election campaign at a time when asylum seekers and border protection were major issues.
===
The accusations surrounding this tragedy are awful. The Australian Government has responsibly acted to prevent a recurrence, despite substantial opposition from political opponents and great criticism from the press. ALP policy seems to have been to encourage more such vessels ..